INTERAZIONE NATIVO E NON NATIVO DURANTE UN CORSO DI SCRITTURA ACCADEMICA IN ITALIANO LS:  RUOLO E FUNZIONI DEL CODE-SWITCHING

Roberta Ferroni; Marilisa Birello

doi:10.13135/2384-8987/2274

Roberta Ferroni Universidade de São Paulo
Marilisa Birello Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona

DOI: https://doi.org/10.13135/2384-8987/2274

Abstract

The article analyzes the use of code-switching for interaction management between an Italian native language teacher and students whose native language is Brazilian Portuguese and, in some cases, Italian, during a Cycle of seminars aimed at the elaboration of a scientific article in Italian foreign language. From the analysis it emerges that, since it is a linguistic context between bilingualism and exolingualism, the use of code-switching is sporadic, when it is present it triggers the activation of sequences of "natural pedagogy" directed to the one who holds a greater linguistic competence to fill lexical and stylistic gaps that the writing phase favors. The occurrence of a code other than Italian can also lead to problems of understanding in the presence of words of which the meaning is not known, in which case it is observed that speakers put in place a series of joint discourse modes that range from reformulations and exemplifications to translation and code-switching to Portuguese, used to solve the communicative problem. It is concluded that in the interaction of high-level students confronting academic writing, code-switching helps to create the conditions for the co-construction of declarative and procedural knowledge relating to the writing of an article, in which context the different actors (teacher and students) contribute by providing their own specific skills.

References

Antón, M., DiCamilla, F. (1999), Socio-cognitive functions of L1 collaborative interaction in the L2 classroom, “The Modern Language Journal”, 83.2, pp. 233-247.

Balboni, P. (2015), Le sfide di Babele. Insegnare le lingue nelle società complesse, Torino, Utet.

Baraldi, C. (2007), Il dialogo in classe: presupposti e condizioni, in C. Baraldi (a cura di), Dialogare in classe. La relazione tra insegnanti e studenti, Roma, Doninzelli: pp. 3-28.

Bazzanella, C. (1992), Aspetti pragmatici della ripetizione dialogica, in G. Gobber (a cura di), Linguistica pragmatica, Atti SLI XXIV (Milano 1990), Bulzoni, Roma, pp. 433-454.

Birello, M., Ferroni, R. (2016), Quando più lingue entrano in gioco: riflessione metalinguistica e approccio orientato all'azione, in ”Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata” 2.3, pp. 117-132.

Brooks, F.B., Donato, R., McGloane, J. (1997), When are they going saying 'it' right? Understanding learner talk during pair-work activity, in "Foreign Language Annals”, 30.4, pp. 534-541

Brooks-Lewis, K. (2009), Adult’s learners perception of the incorporation of their L1 in foreign language taching and learning, in “Applied Linguistics” , 30.2, pp. 216-235.

Brown, P., Levinson, S. (1987), Politeness: some universal in language usage, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Ciliberti, A. (2016), Pratiche discorsive e processi sociali in classi multilingue, in “Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata”, 2.3, pp. 131-140.

Cook, V. (2001), Using the first language in the classroom, in “UTP Journal”, 57.3,pp. 1-14

Cummins, J. (2000), Language, Power and Pedagogy, Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.

Cummins, J. (1979), Cognitive/Academic Language Proficiency, Linguistic Interdependence, the Optimum Age Question and Some Other Matters, in “Working Papers on Bilingualism”,19, pp. 121-129.

Desideri, P. (2011), Pragmatica, argomentazione e glottodidattica del discorso accademico, in P. Desideri, G. Tessuto, G. Il discorso accademico. Lingue e pratiche disciplinari, Urbino, QuattroVenti, pp. 43-72.

Faerch, C., Kasper, G. (1983), Strategies in interlanguage communication, London, Longman.

Fele, G. (2007), L’analisi della conversazione, Bologna, Il Mulino.

Hall, G., Cook, G. (2012), Own-language use in language teaching and learning, in “Language Teaching”, 45.3, pp. 271-308.

Jefferson, G. (1983), On a Failed Hypothesis: 'Conjunctionals' as Overlap-Vulnerable, in “Tilburg Papers in Language and Literature”, 28, pp. 1-33.

Lavinio, C. (2004), Comunicazione e linguaggi disciplinari. Per un’educazione linguiistica trasversale, Roma, Carocci.

Lüdi, G., Py B. (2002), Être bilingue, Bern, Peter Lang.

McMillan, B., Rivers, D. (2011), The practice of policy: Teachers’ attitudes toward “English only, in “System”, 39.2, pp. 251-263.

Orletti, F. (2000), La conversazione diseguale. Potere e interazione, Roma, Carocci.

Piazza, R. (1995), L’interazione verbale nella classe di lingua: uno sguardo alle riparazioni prodotte da insegnanti e studenti, in R. Piazza (a cura di), Dietro il parlato. Conversazione e interazione verbale nella classe di lingua, Firenze, La Nuova Italia, pp. 137-183.

Quadro Comune Europeo di Riferimento per le Lingue: apprendimento insegnamento valutazione (2002), Firenze, La Nuova Italia-Oxford.

Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G., (1974), A Simplest Systematics of the Organisation of Turn-Taking for Conversation, in “Language” 50, pp. 696-735.

Serragiotto, G. (2014), Dalle microlingue disciplinari al CLIL, Torino, Utet.

Sperafico, L., Veronesi, D. (2012), La gestion de la participation dans deux séminaires académiques plurilingues, in L. Mondada, L. Nussbaum (a cura di), Interactions cosmopolites: l’organisation de la participation plurilingue, Limoges, Editions Lucas Lambert, pp. 133-167.

Veronesi, D. (2016), Usare più lingue nella classe di materia: esperienze da un contesto universitario multilingue, in “Rassegna Italiana di Linguistica Applicata”, 2.3, pp. 25-40.

Van Lier, L. (1995). The use of the L1 in L2 classe, in “Babilonia”, 2, pp. 37-43.

Widdowson, H. G. (2003), Defining Issues in English Language Teaching, Oxford, Oxford University Press.